Showing Us Who He Really Is

“How easy it is to abuse truth and language, when men, by habitual wickedness, have learned to set justice at defiance.” — Thomas Paine, “Common Sense on George III’s Speech”, 1782

“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma. To begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.” — Saul D. Alinsky, Rules For Radicals, 1971

As many of us know, the President is one of the most ardent followers of Saul Alinsky. For both, the truth is relative. Consider what the President said earlier this month in his speech in Colorado:

I’m sorry. If he admits that the “Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms” isn’t the next part of his statement a bit contradictory with the rest of the Second Amendment’? You know, that part that says “shall not be infringed? Either we have the full right, un-infringed or we do not have it at all. It’s not a half and half thing. (And since when did our rights get “conferred” upon us? Those delineated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights come from GOD as the Founding Fathers acknowledged.)

The Founding Fathers, in backing the Second Amendment said things like,

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.”

Sounds to me more as if the Founding Fathers — and the words they chose — meant for the people to be able to defend themselves against the government! That’s who “the representatives of the people” are: the President, the House and Senate, the Courts and the State and local governments. So the President’s assertions that it “does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right. [my italics]” is not just wrong, it’s in direct opposition to what Alexander Hamilton and other Founders have said!

Now the President is using the Sandy Hook massacre to further his cause via using the parents as backdrops, and one of them taking his place in the weekly radio address (and traveling at our expense to do his bidding). Their grief, difficult as it is to say anything negative about it, is being used to stoke fear into the hearts of the rest of us. It happened to their children. It could happen to ours. Thus, “gun control” must be the answer. We must take the guns away from everyone.

The President using fear — and, yes, grief — to try to control those who do not know their rights, do not think for themselves, do not do their own investigating of the facts, is (to me) despicable. He’s relying on the least informed, least educated and weakest of us to be able to control the rest of us, pitting one set against the other. Divide and conquer is his forte and he has used it for quite a while now. No, I’m not saying the parents of Sandy Hook are the least informed, etc. I’m saying that the parents’ loss is being used against those who are least informed, etc.

When a President uses tragedies of the Sandy Hook sort to start the process of disarming the people he has an agenda that cannot be good for the people. When he uses a tragedy like Sandy Hook’s parents’ loss as a backdrop and a selling point, he’s selling fear. When he uses fear…

“Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.” — John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776